Continuous Extended Election Seasons Hurts The U.S.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    Within a year of Obama's first election as POTUS, the GOP started maneuvering towards the next Presedential Election, with their intent of putting the breaks on, tryin to prevent any Congressional work until they could get a Republican elected 3 years later. Then it happened again and it could happen this time.

    I'll propose this perspective is harming the country. Do you agree and if so, can anything be done to fix it, i.e. Shorten the election season by law if that is possible. Then just get the Congress to vote for it... :rolleyes: There is too much that need to be done. As a generality, I'd say that refusing to conduct business is incompetence or negligence.
     
  2. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    We have term limits for the Presidency, and I think the extended campaigns for that would be what the OP is complaining about so clearly term limits would do nothing.
     
  4. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #4
    You don't think I know we have term limits for President?

    I'm not talking about Presidential term limits.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    The OP is though...
    --- Post Merged, Mar 2, 2016 ---
    Anyway instead of off topic posts, to address the OP's question, yes I would agree that the extended campaign season starting from almost inauguration day does harm the country. I don't think there is anything that we can do about it especially since most of it isn't formal campaigning. I'm guessing within a month or two of inauguration day we will start seeing speculation in the media as to who is running in 2020, and even if it isn't as blatant as it was with the Republicans saying that they will make Obama a one term president politicians will be starting to feel things out and see what their chances are in the next election.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    Within a year? Try within a day.
     
  7. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    Term limits would not stop this per say.
     
  8. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    If anything it would probably make it worse as everyone in Congress would need to be looking for their next job which would mean either campaigning for a different office or catering to special interests that promise them a job in exchange for their vote which would be a different and arguably worse problem.
     
  9. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #9
    I don't think he is though.
    He wants to shorten the election season but what does that mean exactly?
    Hillary and Trump have been flirting with running for decades it seems but most everyone else is a relative newcomer.
    Electioneering might be one reason for congressional gridlock but I don't think it's the only one.
     
  10. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #10


    It definitely gets in
    the way of running the country. In several quite depressing ways.

    Not the least of which, it requires just about every Senator and Congressman to work a full-time second job as a fundraising telemarketer. Freshman Congressmen are told they are going to need to raise anywhere from $12,000 to $50,000 per week in contributions if they are to have any reasonable chance of getting re-elected. So most of them spend a great deal of their off-hours cooped up in soulless boiler-rooms, speed-dialing potential wealthy contributors. Democrat or Republican; independent or anarchist - I cannot believe that makes for a balanced view on the state of the country.

    What to do about this?

    Well, it would help if there weren't so much money in politics. Not just the politicians raising money. But for the TV and cable networks; newspapers; local TV and radio stations: Political Ad spending is becoming an important segment of revenue. Thousands of journalists make their livings covering endless campaigns. An army of pollsters and consultants; speechwriters and flacks make their living off it. The endless campaign has become the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of American politics.

    It might help shorten the Presidential campaign season if we could persuade Iowa and New Hampshire to move their primary and caucus dates back to March. Or telescope the entire process down to say three months or so. Start in mid-March and have the Conventions in June. But we've got fifty states, and they all want their day in the Sun.

    In my opinion we need some serious campaign finance reform laws. Public financing a candidates might help. But the reality is that the First Amendment makes it very clear you cannot really stop someone for running for office any time they want to.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    And with Citizens United there isn't much room for campaign finance reform without a constitutional amendment which isn't happening in today's political climate.
     
  12. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #12
    Citizens United really has led mainly to the growth of Super Political Action Committees. Groups that can spend money - but cannot directly be controlled by a candidate.

    If I were a wealthy fabulously obscenely rich guy; I'd have to say that the investment return on SuperPac money has been pretty poor. Did Sheldon Adelson get good value out of the money he spent? The Koch Brothers were planning on spending a billion dollars on the next Presidential Campaign. Until the Republican candidate turned out to be Donald Trump.
     
  13. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    Definitely not happening, unfortunately.. and certainly wouldn't be happening with a given party controlling the legislative and executive branches of government. And even if they were to get an amendment proposed, Constitutional Convention will more than likely see to its defeat (in today's political climate) due to how many states' govenrments are controlled by Republicans.

    Until that evens out, there may not be much that can be done outside of finding a way to challenge Citizens United back at SCOTUS.

    BL.
     
  14. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #14
    You get 6 weeks to run and thats it. If you can't get you message to voters in 6 weeks in in the modern world you don't have a message
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    I remember Obama promising never to take Super PAC money. He broke that promise the day after his first inauguration.
     
  16. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #16
    Fascinating how you remember that seeing how Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009 and the term SuperPAC was first used in June of 2010...
     
  17. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #17
    ...and World War I wasn't called World War I until after World War II.

    Fascinating, isn't it?
     
  18. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #18
    Nope. The 1st Amendment allows people to advocate for just about anything (short of yelling fire in a theater), including the actions and advocacy of running for president.

    ...adding, IMO Cruz and Rubio are already campaigning for 2020 right now. The GOP has a long history of heir apparent, next person's turn in nomination fights and Cruz/Rubio are fighting each other for that positioning after the coming Trump landslide loss.
     
  19. Gjwilly macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #19
    Maybe erase campaign donation limits and do away with the need for PACs?
    Wouldn't knowing exactly who contributed what to whom make the process a lot more transparent?
    Buying elections wouldn't work so well if it was done in the spotlight instead of in the dark.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    I think what you actually remember was his statement on the Citizens United case:

    That isn't quite the same thing.

    By definition a candidate cannot "accept" SuperPac money: it has to be funds that are explicitly not controlled by the candidate or his campaign.
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    But he could have righteously denounced it and demand that they cease.
     
  22. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #22
    I was tempted to refer you to Confucius' observation about lying back and enjoying it - but I thought the better of making that joke.

    Obama would have been a fool to have done either. He doesn't have the power to overrule the Supreme Court. He did about all that a President could do.
     
  23. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #23
    I know this idea will likely be unpopular at first, but I think it will work: major public financing for elections.

    The problem is private money in politics. The more money a candidate raises, the earlier they can start their campaign and the longer they can stay in it. Thus there is an incentive to go out and get more money earlier to have money later, which means they have money sooner and can start campaigning sooner, and it's a never-ending feedback loop.

    The solution is to remove any incentive to donate. Imagine if there was a huge public campaign fund that matched every donation to a candidate with the same amount to that candidate's opponent(s). It sounds expensive, but I think it would actually be quite inexpensive because after one cycle, there would be no more major donations.

    Why do people donate? Usually they do it to try to give their preferred candidate an advantage. If there is a government matching system, a donation is no longer any advantage at all. Thus people like the Koch brothers would stop donating, if it didn't give their guys any leg up. If big donors stop giving, the candidates will raise less money, they will be forced to shorten their campaigns, and the election cycle will return to something sane.

    Instead for "regular" non-billionaire donors to influence their chosen candidates, each registered voter could get a voucher of a certain reasonable value of sorts, that they can "donate" to their candidate. The candidate can trade-in this voucher for public campaign finance money that is not matched to their opponents. In this way, voters can still give their guys an advantage, but it's not an unreasonable advantage. This would also incentivize people to register to vote.

    This idea is not new. Other countries have some form of this and it works very well. Incidentally, it's also a fantastic way to get around Citizen's United without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.
     
  24. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    Can't commercials be controlled (limited to 6 months prior) and get rid of PACS? Public finance or small donations.

    We want small donations not allow a billionaire to dump millions on a single individual plus get rid of PACS. The last egregious occurances was Slimey Newt an election or two ago.

    I like public finance and or small donations.
     
  25. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #25
    Of course it harms the country.

    But it makes big media and the two big political parties a metric **** ton of money.

    And money is all that matters in this country.


    You want to fix the problem? Ban all private money from politics. Then ban any type of campaigning more than 90 days before an election.
     

Share This Page